http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/TeeBs said:
Well, owning an APC (Provided it is unarmed) is not a problem, just as long as your license allows operation of 8-wheeled trucks.
Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.
- Thread starter Wintermute_
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, owning an APC (Provided it is unarmed) is not a problem, just as long as your license allows operation of 8-wheeled trucks.
Your points about it being futile to stand up against a potential totalitarian US regime is simply false.
Governments don't want to have to murder half of their population just do have full control over the shattered remnants.
EDIT: I don't see a reason why guns should not be allowed.
Governments don't want to have to murder half of their population just do have full control over the shattered remnants.
EDIT: I don't see a reason why guns should not be allowed.
But then criminals will still aquire firearms, although with a bit more difficulty, and normal citizens will have no defense against these guys. I know it sounds like it would drop the death by firearm rate greatly, but it will probably end up increasing it.
No, it shouldn't be changed.
A. Most people that buy a gun(s) legally use them legally (hunting, collecting, or buying, never using, and forgetting about it.) The old saying comes to mind "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them."
B. Most states have their own individual laws about guns. In Illinois, for example, it's illegal for a citizen to own an automatic. So, the 2nd amendment is fine, it's up the individual state to govern it's laws.
C. I would wager that most gun-related deaths were by guns owned illegally.
D. Bear Arms!
A. Most people that buy a gun(s) legally use them legally (hunting, collecting, or buying, never using, and forgetting about it.) The old saying comes to mind "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them."
B. Most states have their own individual laws about guns. In Illinois, for example, it's illegal for a citizen to own an automatic. So, the 2nd amendment is fine, it's up the individual state to govern it's laws.
C. I would wager that most gun-related deaths were by guns owned illegally.
D. Bear Arms!
A law is only a law if someone is willing to enforce it.Woodsey said:
And I didn't call you stupid I called the Idea of war(*) being illegal stupid, and I stand by that claim.
I've already admitted that my knowledge of current events is limited, so there was no need to be snide.
Also I spent some time looking for a source regarding the charges of corruption but I couldn't find a suitable one, I will retract my comment regarding that for now.
EDIT (*) sorry Invasion of a country, not war.
EDIT 2: While I'd like to continue this chat I need to be up early tomorrow so I'm going to bed, if you wish to go on it may take me a while to respond.
The right to bare arms has nothing to do with crime prevention or for protection from outside invasion.
The American 2nd Amendment has been cited many times as among the most ambiguous of all of the Amendments to their constitution. In one breath it seemingly begins by clarifying that it is addressing the issue to that of rules regarding Militias, an outdated and largely unremembered institution, and in the next suddenly seems to be talking about all people in general. This seems contradictory to many people and some believe that this opens the statement to interpretation. This, however, is not really so. The Amendment is actually quite clear and not contradictorily at all, it simply uses antiquated language to convey its message and it is from a lack of understanding of that language which causes ambiguity.
Hopefully I can help explain what is going on with the Amendment itself. I have my own opinion of whether the rights is contains are valid or not, but this is unimportant as long as one does not understand what the statement itself is actually talking about.
First, let's focus on the most confusing word in the sentence:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
When these words were written, there was no such thing as a modern police force. The concept of the "police force" was a product of the industrial revolution and simply had not been invented yet at the time. Instead, the arm of the government meant to arrest people and hold them were the Militias, civilians called up by the government for the purpose of enforcing its laws. The institutionalization of militias into a uniformed law enforcement is where modern police come from.
Understanding that Militias at the time fulfilled the same role as police do today, it may be helpful to read the Amendment again with modern wording in place of its logical equivalent. To wit:
"A well regulated Police Force, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, let us focus on the second unclear portion of the wording. What does the word "regulated" mean? The word is still in common use today, particularly in terms of banks and corporations, but still its meaning had not changed much in the last 250 years. Regulation means, basically, "to restrict, control, or impose limiting rules upon." This makes sense because there is no such thing as regulating an industry by telling them "go nuts." Point of fact, the removing of rules against a body is known as "deregulation."
Understanding that Regulated, in this sense, means basically controlled or restrained, we can once again replace the outdated terminology in the sentence with a logical modern equivalent. To wit:
"A well restrained Police Force, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, in order to make sure that we are, in fact, not changing the meaning of the statement itself, we should check our interpretation against the historical background of the original statement. In 1791 the people of the American Colonies had, less than a decade before, just ended it's long struggle with it's own government. Until that time, they were not a separate country at all, but simply a collection of highly rebellious colonies. They had taken arms against their own government in an attempt to replace it with another, more local, one and had succeeded, much to the surprise of most observers. When it came time to write the rules of this new local unified government, among their highest priorities was to ensure that this new government be restrained in a way that they wished their previous government had been. Among these was the ability for the government to disarm its populace forcefully. Their Imperial government had attempted to evoke this right by seizing and destroying the civilian armory in Concord, Massachusetts, the defense of which became the opening battle of the war. Once the war was finished and the rules for their new government were being forged, there was widespread opposition to the creation of a constitution at all. The fear being that if the government were created and given powers over the people, then it would inevitably be abused in the same way. The Bill of Rights, in its entirety, was the response to that criticism, by codifying a list of regulations, ways in which the government could not use its power against its citizens. Among the first things they listed was the second amendment which addresses that exact issue.
People have a right to their own opinions, but they do not have a right to their own facts. Your opinion of whether or not people have the right to possess weapons is your own, but the meaning of the amendment itself is not in question.
The American 2nd Amendment has been cited many times as among the most ambiguous of all of the Amendments to their constitution. In one breath it seemingly begins by clarifying that it is addressing the issue to that of rules regarding Militias, an outdated and largely unremembered institution, and in the next suddenly seems to be talking about all people in general. This seems contradictory to many people and some believe that this opens the statement to interpretation. This, however, is not really so. The Amendment is actually quite clear and not contradictorily at all, it simply uses antiquated language to convey its message and it is from a lack of understanding of that language which causes ambiguity.
Hopefully I can help explain what is going on with the Amendment itself. I have my own opinion of whether the rights is contains are valid or not, but this is unimportant as long as one does not understand what the statement itself is actually talking about.
First, let's focus on the most confusing word in the sentence:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
When these words were written, there was no such thing as a modern police force. The concept of the "police force" was a product of the industrial revolution and simply had not been invented yet at the time. Instead, the arm of the government meant to arrest people and hold them were the Militias, civilians called up by the government for the purpose of enforcing its laws. The institutionalization of militias into a uniformed law enforcement is where modern police come from.
Understanding that Militias at the time fulfilled the same role as police do today, it may be helpful to read the Amendment again with modern wording in place of its logical equivalent. To wit:
"A well regulated Police Force, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, let us focus on the second unclear portion of the wording. What does the word "regulated" mean? The word is still in common use today, particularly in terms of banks and corporations, but still its meaning had not changed much in the last 250 years. Regulation means, basically, "to restrict, control, or impose limiting rules upon." This makes sense because there is no such thing as regulating an industry by telling them "go nuts." Point of fact, the removing of rules against a body is known as "deregulation."
Understanding that Regulated, in this sense, means basically controlled or restrained, we can once again replace the outdated terminology in the sentence with a logical modern equivalent. To wit:
"A well restrained Police Force, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, in order to make sure that we are, in fact, not changing the meaning of the statement itself, we should check our interpretation against the historical background of the original statement. In 1791 the people of the American Colonies had, less than a decade before, just ended it's long struggle with it's own government. Until that time, they were not a separate country at all, but simply a collection of highly rebellious colonies. They had taken arms against their own government in an attempt to replace it with another, more local, one and had succeeded, much to the surprise of most observers. When it came time to write the rules of this new local unified government, among their highest priorities was to ensure that this new government be restrained in a way that they wished their previous government had been. Among these was the ability for the government to disarm its populace forcefully. Their Imperial government had attempted to evoke this right by seizing and destroying the civilian armory in Concord, Massachusetts, the defense of which became the opening battle of the war. Once the war was finished and the rules for their new government were being forged, there was widespread opposition to the creation of a constitution at all. The fear being that if the government were created and given powers over the people, then it would inevitably be abused in the same way. The Bill of Rights, in its entirety, was the response to that criticism, by codifying a list of regulations, ways in which the government could not use its power against its citizens. Among the first things they listed was the second amendment which addresses that exact issue.
People have a right to their own opinions, but they do not have a right to their own facts. Your opinion of whether or not people have the right to possess weapons is your own, but the meaning of the amendment itself is not in question.
The inference was that you were calling me stupid by calling the idea of it stupid. And it is still illegal, and I imagine it would be enforced in some way - probably through way of a (massive) fine, limitations placed on the military, whatever. Same things that happened to Germany after the second world war.moretimethansense said:
The Iraq war is arguably justifiable and is harder to prove misinformation was used as an excuse.
I think it bears mentioning here that the right to bear arms is the only part of the Bill of Rights that has its justification explicitly stated in the Constitution. It exists only because of the need for a civilian militia.FFHAuthor said:
The obsolescence of an untrained civilian militia has already been discussed above, I'm just pointing out that there is an objective distinction between the right to bear arms and the other rights you mention. It's not quite the slippery slope you suggest. Besides, we already have and still do restrict freedom of speech and religion but that's an argument for another thread.
Also, the "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" argument, although reasonable, is not borne out by the facts. There are more than a few countries with strict gun control which are not overrun by gangs of criminals with machine guns. Conversely, there are legitimate reasons for a civilian to own a gun, especially in areas where there isn't a cop on every other street corner.
My own opinion is that we need gun control but not an outright ban; no automatics or derringers, restricting who they're sold to - especially concealable handguns, licensing and registration of owners, but especially that licenses should require training - and a damn sight more stringent than the skill level required for drivers' licenses. A great deal of the firearms mishaps which occur could be avoided if the owners knew what they were doing, rather than just having clean criminal records.
Number of active and reserve U.S military personnel = ~3million
Number of American civilians with at least one gun = ~80million
The goal of an oppressive government is not to kill, it is to oppress. It would be impossible to control that many armed citizens, not even taking into account the defections that would take place in the military.
It is VERY hard to own an automatic weapon, very few people do, and they are HEAVILY regulated.
Criminals don't buy guns from gun stores. They get them ILLEGALLY. Therefore no amount of regulation will inhibit them, making the laws useless.
I believe that I have addressed every one of you arguments so...no, I don't think your views are justified.
*Edited to remove double negative*
Number of American civilians with at least one gun = ~80million
The goal of an oppressive government is not to kill, it is to oppress. It would be impossible to control that many armed citizens, not even taking into account the defections that would take place in the military.
It is VERY hard to own an automatic weapon, very few people do, and they are HEAVILY regulated.
Criminals don't buy guns from gun stores. They get them ILLEGALLY. Therefore no amount of regulation will inhibit them, making the laws useless.
I believe that I have addressed every one of you arguments so...no, I don't think your views are justified.
*Edited to remove double negative*
When America gets invaded? What? I'm sorry, but that's silly. Maybe you should pay less attention to crazy people who tell you we're on the brink of being invaded by foreign troops.Terminate421 said:
As for the collection: a) that's not irony and b) collecting weapons is very different than collecting stamps or coins. Not that I'm saying you shouldn't collect guns, mind you - you're completely free to do whatever you'd like with your money and I personally have no problem with it. But you should at least try to see why others feel differently.
And there's a difference between complete gun control (which yes, is impossible) and revision. Given the violence seen in big cities and the availability of certain excessive weaponry, I can see how limiting availability of certain guns and implementing things like paperwork and registration would be beneficial. There are parts of the states where if you go to a gun show and you've got cash it's extremely easy to walk out of there with a weapon no questions asked. I don't see how making it so that's not the case would hurt anyone.
I actually covered that just before your own post. The amendment is meant to limit militia from removing your weapons, not to allow militias to have weapons. That interpretation, despite its growing acceptance, makes no logical or grammatical sense as a derivative of the second amendment.Wereduck said:
As a former member of the military I take exception to your believe that the entire military is mindless enough that they would actually fight against their fellow countrymen should it actually come to that.Wintermute_ said:
The only part of the 2nd amendment that is out of date is the part about the militia. A militia in that regards is no longer needed. However I am glad you recognize that the 2nd amendment exists and does guarantee people the right to keep and bear arms, and that the constitution would need to be amended before guns could be removed from the hands of the people. Personal I think the 2nd amendment is a good thing, but I can understand conflicting opinions especially among those that have only seen guns in the movies and never experienced firing one before. Sadly those that disagree usually try to argue away the 2nd amendment or fail to even acknowledge it exists.
That is completely false. Half the households in the US have firearms sure, but you think every single person that owns a gun carries? Might surprise you how many of those guns are long guns.RatRace123 said:
As far as I am concerned people focus far to much on the negative impact of firearms without looking at the entire picture. It's easy to say one murder with the weapon is one to many, but how many traffic accidents are to many? More specifically how many drunk drivers need to kill before you eliminate alcohol? Drunk drivers kill more each year then murders by firearms (since only around 1% of the deaths by firearms come from self defense let's throw those in there as well, it's still less). More people die in traffic accidents each year then are killed by firearms period. This includes suicides which make up 55% of the deaths by firearm each year.
It's hard to get a perfectly accurate fix on how many crimes are prevented each year but several studies taking police reports into account find that less then 8% of the time a gun is used in defense (possibly as low as 1% of the time) is the weapon actually fired, which by all indications shows civilians are less trigger happy then the police. Police fire as often as 30% of the time, which shows that don't rely on their firearm as often for defense as much as it shows they fire more often.
The problem with accurately fixing the numbers down is that as many as half of the time a weapon is used in defense the sight of the weapon is enough to prevent the crime and no police report is even filed by the person. Still even with the figures from the police reports it seems more crimes are actually prevent then occur due to firearms. You also have to factor in how many of the crimes that occurred where the criminal was armed would have still occurred without firearms. To me it seems the population being armed quite possibly saves more lives then are lost.
